Gambling Commission reconsiders where regulatory settlements should be sent

Summary

Great Britain’s Gambling Commission has opened a consultation (5 February to 2 April 2026) proposing that regulatory settlement payments be treated the same as fines and paid to central government rather than being allocated directly to specific harm-reduction projects or charities. The change is prompted by the introduction of a new statutory levy in April last year and the regulator’s concern that targeted settlements risk creating parallel funding routes outside the statutory commissioning and evaluation processes.

The Commission says routing settlements into the Consolidated Fund will ensure swift payment and allow government to decide on their use, preventing uncoordinated activity outside the levy framework. The consultation invites responses from licence holders, trade bodies, third-sector organisations involved in gambling-harm work and other stakeholders.

Key Points

The consultation runs from 5 February until 2 April 2026 and seeks views from operators, charities and other interested parties.
Proposal: treat regulatory settlements like fines/financial penalties and pay them into central government (the Consolidated Fund).
Rationale: avoid parallel funding channels that could bypass the statutory levy’s commissioning, evaluation and governance.
Regulatory settlements are the majority of the Commission’s rulings and represent millions of pounds — notable 2025 settlements included £2m from Paddy Power Betfair and £1.4m from AG Communications (AspireGlobal).
If implemented, the change centralises control of post-settlement spending and could reduce direct funding flows to harm-focused projects or charities.
The move comes alongside other sector changes, including increases to Remote Gaming Duty and General Betting Duty announced for 2026–27.

Context and relevance

This consultation sits at the intersection of regulation, public finance and third-sector funding for gambling-harm work. The statutory levy, introduced following the Gambling Act white paper, was intended to centralise and professionalise funding for research, prevention and treatment. Allowing settlements to be paid into the Consolidated Fund would give government the same discretion over those monies as it has over penalty receipts, potentially altering how and where harm-reduction initiatives are commissioned and funded.

For operators, the change affects where settlement money ends up but not the Commission’s ability to use settlements as an enforcement tool. For charities and treatment providers, it raises questions about future funding routes and the transparency of commissioning. The decision will matter to compliance teams, policy leads and anyone involved in delivering or funding gambling-harm services.

Why should I read this?

Short version: this could shift millions away from direct support projects into the Treasury pot. If you work for an operator, charity or regulator in the gambling space — or you commission harm services — this consultation could change where money lands and who decides how it’s spent. Save yourself the headache: skim the consultation, consider a response, and check how this might affect your funding or compliance plans.

Author’s take

Punchy: This is a proper policy tweak with real cash implications. It’s not just paperwork — it reshapes funding routes and centralises decisions. If you care about how gambling-harm programmes are funded or how settlements are used, dig into the consultation.